The Continuing Saga of Free Speech.... :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#1 Mar 10 2011 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Last year at UC Irvine, 11 Muslim students - 8 from UC Irvine and 3 from UC Riverside, 'disrupted' a speech on campus by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. There's never been any question about the peaceful intent of the protesters. There was no violence and no threats issued by the students during the planned protest. However claims are that the Ambassador was not able to fully get his spoken ideas across to the audience due to the disruptions.

At the time, the student club that organized the protest (the Muslim Student Union) was suspended, I believe, for one academic year.

Now the DA is planning to prosecute the 'eleven'.

The DA wrote:

....called the students' actions "an organized effort, days prior to the event, to shut down the speech." As a result, Schroeder said, the students deprived the speaker and the audience of their first amendment rights, "and that's against the law." As examples of what the students could have done to protest the speech without breaking the law, Schroeder suggested they could have handed out leaflets, worn t-shirts or asked hostile questions during a Q & A section.

Schroeder also pointed out that the UC Irvine police made the arrests the night of Oren's speech, and brought the case to the DA's office. As a result, the office had a duty to evaluate whether the law was broken. "We just want people to accept responsibility for what they did," she said.

At the moment the institutions faculty is petitioning the prosecution.

So, what do you think?

Did the students break the law sufficiently to warrant prosecution?

I'm of the mind that the police should adhere to past practice. If there is record of them prosecuting misdemeanor crimes committed by students of this campus in the past then this one should be too. However, if there is record of them NOT prosecuting misdemeanor crimes then they should treat this case similarly. Oftentimes, students are given a wave by local law enforcement for minor offences as typically campuses have their own security and their own punitive system (to some extent).

Edit - an article

Edited, Mar 10th 2011 2:53pm by Elinda

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#2 Mar 10 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1593375795916

View User Forum

Scholar

7,819 posts

Meh, they did the crime they pay the time. Things could have been worse than a year suspension of the club. I've been president of several groups in college and you do have rules that need to be followed. Break them or **** off the school and your banned. It's not hard to see or read the rules. I remember how close the Frat I was in got to being kicked from school because of stupid stunts like that. I remember having to discuss the situation with the Dean because one of our members got drunk and drove his car on campus up the main walk and parked it outside the commons building to come to the Frat meeting. Spectacular? Yes! Having an Olds 442 on display? Having the police and campus security bust into the meeting? Fun!

Edited, Mar 10th 2011 8:54am by Tailmon

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#3 Mar 10 2011 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

Tailmon wrote:

Meh, they did the crime they pay the time. Things could have been worse than a year suspension of the club.

Well they are getting worse. That's the point. The DA is prosecuting them for a crime.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#4 Mar 10 2011 at 7:59 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

After reading the article I'm really on the fence. I agree the students should have been removed and punished by their universities (and they were). But breaking a law? Eh... I don't know if interrupting someone counts as a violation of their free speech. After being removed I figure that was that. Their organization was even suspended, and I really feel that's enough of a punishment. But the charges are misdemeanors, so probably not a life-destroying sentence, and the charges seem valid:

Quote:

On February 4, the DA's office announced that it was charging each student with "one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to disturb a meeting and one misdemeanor count of disturbance of a meeting."

That's exactly what they did. They made a plan to disturb a meeting and did so. I guess there're laws on the book against that kinda thing, so it seems like the law is being followed.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#5 Mar 10 2011 at 8:02 AM Rating: Default

__DEL__1613953020893

Scholar

2,453 posts

How many hundreds of similar events have happened without the protesters being prosecuted for violating someone's right to free speech? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Sounds like its just dog-piling on the most popular whipping boy.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#6 Mar 10 2011 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1651450735431

View User Forum

Sage

10,246 posts

Americans have the right to assemble peaceably. They have the right to express their ideas. If the exercise of a right infringes on the rights of another, adjudication is necessary. If the protest was not peaceful and had the effect of disrupting the assembly, it was unlawful. Unlawful acts must be punished. I'd be all for the same treatment were the groups in reversed positions.

Deathwysh wrote:

How many hundreds of similar events have happened without the protesters being prosecuted for violating someone's right to free speech? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

So now we're basing our opinion of what is right on the "But Johnny did it." defense? Good to know.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#7 Mar 10 2011 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

MoebiusLord wrote:

Americans have the right to assemble peaceably. They have the right to express their ideas. If the exercise of a right infringes on the rights of another, adjudication is necessary. If the protest was not peaceful and had the effect of disrupting the assembly, it was unlawful. Unlawful acts must be punished. I'd be all for the same treatment were the groups in reversed positions.

Deathwysh wrote:

How many hundreds of similar events have happened without the protesters being prosecuted for violating someone's right to free speech? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

So now we're basing our opinion of what is right on the "But Johnny did it." defense? Good to know.

You can't be arbitrary though. I mean if a particular town never enforces it's speed limit until the polka-dotted woman drives through town...and then SHE gets a ticket. You could easily claim discrimination against polka-dotted women.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#8 Mar 10 2011 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1651450735431

View User Forum

Sage

10,246 posts

Elinda wrote:

MoebiusLord wrote:

Americans have the right to assemble peaceably. They have the right to express their ideas. If the exercise of a right infringes on the rights of another, adjudication is necessary. If the protest was not peaceful and had the effect of disrupting the assembly, it was unlawful. Unlawful acts must be punished. I'd be all for the same treatment were the groups in reversed positions.

Deathwysh wrote:

How many hundreds of similar events have happened without the protesters being prosecuted for violating someone's right to free speech? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

So now we're basing our opinion of what is right on the "But Johnny did it." defense? Good to know.

You can't be arbitrary though. I mean if a particular town never enforces it's speed limit until the polka-dotted woman drives through town...and then SHE gets a ticket. You could easily claim discrimination against polka-dotted women.

I didn't read in the article how the DA's office had let hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of similar cases go uncharged when presented with a case.

I was also under the impression that if something is wrong it should be changed. Tough sh:t for you if you happen to be next in line after the change.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#9 Mar 10 2011 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

MoebiusLord wrote:

Elinda wrote:

MoebiusLord wrote:

Americans have the right to assemble peaceably. They have the right to express their ideas. If the exercise of a right infringes on the rights of another, adjudication is necessary. If the protest was not peaceful and had the effect of disrupting the assembly, it was unlawful. Unlawful acts must be punished. I'd be all for the same treatment were the groups in reversed positions.

Deathwysh wrote:

How many hundreds of similar events have happened without the protesters being prosecuted for violating someone's right to free speech? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

So now we're basing our opinion of what is right on the "But Johnny did it." defense? Good to know.

You can't be arbitrary though. I mean if a particular town never enforces it's speed limit until the polka-dotted woman drives through town...and then SHE gets a ticket. You could easily claim discrimination against polka-dotted women.

I didn't read in the article how the DA's office had let hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of similar cases go uncharged when presented with a case.

No, but you commented on Deaths comment about similar events not being prosecuted.

Edited, Mar 10th 2011 4:52pm by Elinda

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#10 Mar 10 2011 at 9:58 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1651450735431

View User Forum

Sage

10,246 posts

Elinda wrote:

MoebiusLord wrote:

Elinda wrote:

MoebiusLord wrote:

Americans have the right to assemble peaceably. They have the right to express their ideas. If the exercise of a right infringes on the rights of another, adjudication is necessary. If the protest was not peaceful and had the effect of disrupting the assembly, it was unlawful. Unlawful acts must be punished. I'd be all for the same treatment were the groups in reversed positions.

Deathwysh wrote:

How many hundreds of similar events have happened without the protesters being prosecuted for violating someone's right to free speech? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

So now we're basing our opinion of what is right on the "But Johnny did it." defense? Good to know.

You can't be arbitrary though. I mean if a particular town never enforces it's speed limit until the polka-dotted woman drives through town...and then SHE gets a ticket. You could easily claim discrimination against polka-dotted women.

I didn't read in the article how the DA's office had let hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of similar cases go uncharged when presented with a case.

No, but you commented on Deaths comment about similar events not being prosecuted.

True, which in this case is irrelevant, hence the mocking reply.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#11 Mar 10 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

If this can stick, then why can't it be applied to WBC?

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#12 Mar 10 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1625444348715

Sage

3,362 posts

Uglysasquatch wrote:

If this can stick, then why can't it be applied to WBC?

WBC just kind of hangs off in the corner and holds signs and yells. There's a distance kept. Not saying it's right, just stating the difference. I don't think they should be punished further, but I may be allowing other biases to control that decision.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#13 Mar 10 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good

trickybeck

Tracer Bullet

12,636 posts

I guess you could charge them for some kind of harassment or public disturbance, but I don't think it's constitutionally possible for a private citizen to deny another's right to free speech. That's not how it works.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#14 Mar 10 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good

idiggory

Muggle@#%^er

20,024 posts

Quote:

I guess you could charge them for some kind of harassment or public disturbance, but I don't think it's constitutionally possible for a private citizen to deny another's right to free speech. That's not how it works.

If we are talking about a public situation, then I'd say you are right. Like if he was talking in the middle of a park and they came up and started shouting over him, then they aren't violating any law.

But they entered a private setting and disrupted a private meeting. I'd say that's a significant difference.

Had they just been protesting outside, or handing out leaflets (as was suggested), then I would be absolutely against this charge.

On this case, I'm not. Under that law, they should be charged.

Of course, that's not to say I agree with the law. THAT, I'm on the fence about. But that's a different issue. We could always move the thread in that direction of course.

Quote:

You can't be arbitrary though. I mean if a particular town never enforces it's speed limit until the polka-dotted woman drives through town...and then SHE gets a ticket. You could easily claim discrimination against polka-dotted women.

I understand you were just replying to Moe's reply, but I don't think that this really works in this situation.

Are there many, many instances where this goes unpunished? Yes. But they chose to interrupt an Israeli AMBASSADOR. Is it really surprising that this wasn't one of those many cases?

There are many laws that go largely unpunished. But if you do them to/in front of high ranking political officials, you're vastly increasing the chances you'll be charged with something. I wouldn't call that discrimination.

____________________________

IDrownFish wrote:

Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:

Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#15 Mar 10 2011 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good

trickybeck

Tracer Bullet

12,636 posts

idiggory wrote:

Quote:

I guess you could charge them for some kind of harassment or public disturbance, but I don't think it's constitutionally possible for a private citizen to deny another's right to free speech. That's not how it works.

If we are talking about a public situation, then I'd say you are right. Like if he was talking in the middle of a park and they came up and started shouting over him, then they aren't violating any law.

But they entered a private setting and disrupted a private meeting. I'd say that's a significant difference.

So it's tresspassing then.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#16 Mar 10 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1662941810887

Scholar

9,997 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

After reading the article I'm really on the fence. I agree the students should have been removed and punished by their universities (and they were). But breaking a law? Eh... I don't know if interrupting someone counts as a violation of their free speech. After being removed I figure that was that. Their organization was even suspended, and I really feel that's enough of a punishment. But the charges are misdemeanors, so probably not a life-destroying sentence, and the charges seem valid:

Quote:

On February 4, the DA's office announced that it was charging each student with "one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to disturb a meeting and one misdemeanor count of disturbance of a meeting."

That's exactly what they did. They made a plan to disturb a meeting and did so. I guess there're laws on the book against that kinda thing, so it seems like the law is being followed.

Personally I'm not of the opinion that ignorance is no excuse for the law. If a law is sufficiently obscure, as is this one, then I think a warning and public reminder is a more appropriate course of action. Harsh punishment in these cases only furthers the perception that our government applies regulation unfairly and unnecessarily.

▲ Page top

The Continuing Saga of Free Speech....Follow